IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Satyanarayan Saran S/o Shri Ratiram Saran - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1428 of 2023
Decided On : 09-10-2023
Dismissal - Service - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 19(ii)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable, was dismissed from service without an inquiry after allegedly pointing a gun at superiors. The petitioner challenged the dismissal, arguing a violation of natural justice principles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons given for dispensing with the inquiry were not reasonable and correct, as required by Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules. The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of recording sufficient and cogent reasons for dispensing with an inquiry.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, validity of dismissal without inquiry
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal without an inquiry was not justified as the reasons given were not convincing and did not meet the requirements of Rule 19(ii). The court emphasized the need for concrete and appropriate reasons for dispensing with an inquiry.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the dismissal order, and directed the petitioner's reinstatement with benefits. The respondents were given the option to initiate a departmental inquiry if desired, with the payment of back-wages contingent on the result of such inquiry.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Churu, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
3. Briefly, the facts necessary to be noted in the present writ petition for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was serving as ‘Constable’ in the respondent-Department and while discharging his duties on 19.07.2022, an incident took place, wherein the petitioner alleged to have pointed gun on his Superiors. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 20.07.2022 and, thereafter, an order was passed by the respondent on 22.07.2022, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. Against the order dated 22.07.2022, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner but the same too has been dismissed vide order dated 28.12.2022. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been dismissed from service without holding any inquiry. The reasons for dispensing with the inquiry given in the order impugned dated 22.07.2022, on the face of it, are not sustainable and it can be presumed that without a reasonable cause and without any foundation of the fact that the petitioner may murder the witnesses, the order impugned has been passed under Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as “the Rules of 1958”) dispensing with the inquiry and straightaway passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that by passing such order, the petitioner has been dismissed from service without extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing which is in gross violation of principle of natural justice.
5. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Bhinya Ram V/s State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5669/2021) decided on 23.05.2022 and the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.848/2022 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. V/s. Bhinya Ram) decided on 05.04.2023. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be allowed and the order impugned dated 22.07.2022 as well as the order dated 28.12.2022 may be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it was impracticable for holding an inquiry in the present case as the petitioner has committed a grave offence and it was not feasible to hold the inquiry against such a person. He further submits that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded sufficient reasons for not holding the inquiry in its order dated 22.07.2022. The order of the disciplinary inquiry was affirmed by the Appellate Authority by passing a reasoned order on 28.12.2022, therefore, the present writ petition is prayed to be dismissed.
7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.
8. The fact that the petitioner was serving as ‘Constable’ in the respondent-Department is apparent from the record and the incident which took place on 19.07.2022, is also undisputed. The only point which is required to be considered in the present case is whether in such a case, the recourse to Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958 can be taken by dispensing with the disciplinary inquiry and straightaway passing the order of dismissal. For brevity, it will be appropriate to reproduce the reasoning given by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 22.07.2022 for dispensing with the inquiry in the present case is as under:-
^^;g gS fd Jh lR;ukjk;.k dkfuLVscy ua- 1360 laUrjh igjk ds nkSjku viuh euethZ ls iqfyl Fkkuk jruxढ+ dh gokykr esa cUn eqfYtekuks esa ls ,d eqfYte dks lkFk ys vU; cUn gokykr eqfYteku ,oa lUrjh igjk dks NksM+dj viuh cSfjd esa pys tkuk rFkk
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of concrete and appropriate reasons for dispensing with an inquiry before dismissing a government servant, as mandated by Rule 19(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Se....
Dismissal from service matter - Rule 23 of Rules of 1991 clearly indicate that provisions of Revision are not mandatory in nature and are clearly at discretion of Officer whose appeal has been reject....
Dismissal of a civil servant without proper inquiry violates constitutional safeguards and is arbitrary; procedural requirements must be strictly followed.
The court emphasized that dismissal without a proper inquiry violates principles of natural justice and requires valid justification under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.